A. Interpretation – Public health assistance is specific health services directly available through funding to needy individuals.
B. Violation – The plan merely funds surveillance systems that do not directly offer health services to the needy. (Imagine a camera treating a patient)
C. Standards
1. Brightline – sets a clear distinction between plans that directly provide health services to individuals, such as doctors or drug treatment, from plans that indirectly affect health services in Africa.
2.FX T – Surveillance systems eventually lead to an extension of health services. Though these systems may increase, whether these really cause an increase in health services is a question of solvency. Looking to solvency for T would destroy debate as Affs would run unpredictable FX cases in which Negs would always lose on solvency.
3. Education – Aff shifts the debate to simply the process of the plan, whether an increase really occurs or not, destroying education on how specific services really affect Africa.
4. Limits – Allowing plans that only fund mechanisms that may or may not increase health services limits Neg to generic spending DA’s. We have to grant AFF solvency to gain any of our health services links, which means neg has to take on the aff’s burden in order to have argumentative ground.
D. Voters
1. Fairness – Neg can’t debate FX and has lost links already to multiple health services.
2. Education – Aff shifts from topic debate to funding debate.
A. Interpretation – Public health assistance is specific health services directly available through funding to needy individuals.
B. Violation – The plan merely funds surveillance systems that do not directly offer health services to the needy. (Imagine a camera treating a patient)
C. Standards
1. Brightline – sets a clear distinction between plans that directly provide health services to individuals, such as doctors or drug treatment, from plans that indirectly affect health services in Africa.
2.FX T – Surveillance systems eventually lead to an extension of health services. Though these systems may increase, whether these really cause an increase in health services is a question of solvency. Looking to solvency for T would destroy debate as Affs would run unpredictable FX cases in which Negs would always lose on solvency.
3. Education – Aff shifts the debate to simply the process of the plan, whether an increase really occurs or not, destroying education on how specific services really affect Africa.
4. Limits – Allowing plans that only fund mechanisms that may or may not increase health services limits Neg to generic spending DA’s. We have to grant AFF solvency to gain any of our health services links, which means neg has to take on the aff’s burden in order to have argumentative ground.
D. Voters
1. Fairness – Neg can’t debate FX and has lost links already to multiple health services.
2. Education – Aff shifts from topic debate to funding debate.